Subscribe: / jimandsamshow Jim Norton & Sam Roberts are joined in studio by Neil deGrasse Tyson. They discuss the film 'Arrival' and Hollywood's portrayal of science. Follow @JimandSamShow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.
Well the science in Arrival wasn't really wrong. They avoided some high concepts and stuck to the real linguistics and the only "leap" they took is based on a theory which might be slightly exagaratted but is well executed.
As a bilingual, I do indeed think differently when I speak English and Mandarin. I find myself more expressive when I speak English but when I speak Mandarin, I feel strangely more reserved. For instance, I can say 'I like you' to my friend easily in English but when I speak Mandarin, I would never say 'I like you' to anyone cuz it just feels really weird for no apparent reasons.
How or when was it exactly debunked? HUmanity never encountered language different enough to actually require us to think differently then we already are. And languages with different structures require you to think in terms of those structures. Which could be seen as the part of linguistic relativity, although on small scale.
The woman who was the main linguistics consultant for the movie explained in an interview that what language we speak does not significantly alter our perception.
I really enjoy Ted Chiang's work; his stories are remarkably thoughtful, creative, and provocative. But in the case of Arrival (my favorite film), I actually do prefer the film. It feels (at least to me) slightly less deterministic at its conclusion, as though Louise really does have some free will to choose her future, but is given a sort of counterfactual knowledge of a possible future. Knowing that making the choice to have a child, knowing that her daughter would have a future fatal illness, and still choosing that future, feels to me a more powerful conclusion than that her future is already fully written, and that she is simply reciting lines from a play that she has memorized.
Imo I don't know what you're searching for asking if "the science is real". There's not much science in the movie, it's an exploration of the idea of execution of one's free will in a universe that is deterministic.
Well the ships disappearing at the end probably aren’t disappearing they probably left at the speed of light so we wouldn’t see them zoom away but disappear, that may be a looked over piece pf science
So weird too that the aliens can see their problem three thousand years in the future and their only hope is this primitive, violent, selfish species called Homo sapiens. Loved the idea of discovering an entirely new way of communicating but the time travel and free will stuff just ruined it.
Most people only say the book was better to make themselves seem cultured and smart. Stop comparing books to movies. We read books and watch movies two different purposes. I would like all the movie bashers to leave out the theatres and just get together, pay an entrance fee at a book store and have a group read while cheering and eating popcorn.
movies sometimes have to make compromises because they have to cram as much info as possible from the book into a one and half hour movie so they wont offer the same experience as the books do but it doesn't necessarily mean they are bad, its just a preference
Or they say it because that’s how they feel about it. What is getting you so hot and bothered about people saying that they think some movie is not as good as a book? You’re reading (excuse the pun) too much into other people’s motivations (wanting to appear smart). My advice: You don’t need to feel less smart because you haven’t read the book. (and that’s me just reading something into your assumption)
@bob bill No worries, I’m not judging you for being uncultured. That’s nothing to feel ashamed about. It’s nothing you can’t fix. Just read some books ;)
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was put forth in the middle 20th Century. It is only in the 21st Century that scholars have really started exploring it. Lera Boroditsky, who has multiple youtube videos of her lectures, is one scholar to listen to or read. Aneta Pavlenko also has edited a good text on this topic--Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages.
It's a simple concept. Just like your current self can learn from memories (typically from events in the past), you can also learn from your future (since time was non-linear). So your past, present and future all exists in all at the same moment and you can use any information across the entire timeline.
It's the Sapir Wharf Hypothesis. Basically, the hypothesis states that our perception of time is deeply engrained in the language we have for time. When she finally figures out the Heptapod language, her perception of time changes
Did Neil watch the movie? Time travel never happens in the movie. The main character doesn't travel to the future, she gains foresight into it after understanding the aliens written language. The science behind that is in the power that linguistics has on someones perception of time and reality. The the big takeaway from the movie isn't time travel, rather that humans loose an entire realm of communication because our writer langue has been primarily linked with spoken language. The same way we expect videos to have sound, we expect written languages to be spoken...
In my own opinion Louise did some kind of time travelling, specifically the moment when she needs to contact the China's General. While on the phone shes figuring out what what to say in order to convince the general in middle of emergency. She's trying to obtain the words from the future for her to tell in the present, and her future jumps to the past to recall if she did spoke with the general from the past. She did mention in the movie that the concept of time from the heptapods is non linear, so somehow it adds up. so yeah there a timd travelling scene in the movie
@@joemenesalcover4442 she gains foresight into the future, because after learning their language she is able to perceive time as non linear so she can remember events in the present via her furture selfs memories. This is seen throughout the movie when she begins to get glimpses of her unborn daughters life as her understanding of the alien language grows. At the end of the movie she briefly struggles with living a life she has already experienced. It is similar to time travel, the way remembering an event in the past is similar to time travel, but she cannot physically interact with the future only remember it. The theme of the movie not being about time travel but about the links between language and perception. And the movie highlights that the aliens have 2 distinct types of language, verbal and written. Vs humans where the written language is restricted because it is only a representation of a spoken language.
@@joemenesalcover4442 please rewatch the movie now your thoughts will be different because time is past.... Bytheway I'm from Sri Lanka and our native language is Sinhala it has spoken and written language separately.
Something I just only now thought of... Did the aliens arrive in that location purposely because their future needs would depend on the initial efforts of Louise and Ian? Did they already know what they had to do and who they had to meet with, essentially enforcing their own future and their future needs of both our species?
My question is only eleven countries had contact with them did the share with the other 200+ nations or did they not the heptapod language is shown to be taught in school yet the small scale time wars between criminals and police would be auch very bad consequence or the fact that everybody now knows their entire life before it started if that was actually a School full of Kids and not government linguists would people want to know their life
@@Bruh-hq1hx so there are only 195 nations first of all second of all why would you go to every single nation? Space travel is incredibly time consuming and inefficient even if they are an incredibly advanced civilization the amount of energy and time required to travel between solar systems is immense. Why send 200 ships to work with 400 linguistic experts if you only need the combined efforts of the most influential nations? It honestly kinda makes more sense this way. But also 12 total countries because of the 12 hours on a clock. So both realistic cost and a metaphorical meaning
@@Bruh-hq1hx If time is circular, then you could keep repeating it within a pattern. Amy Adams character experiences time as circular now, and she continues to live in a time loop of what she considers the best years of her life, which is when her daughter is alive. Because of this, she may have done things in the past without realizing she did it because she hasn't actually experienced it yet, so she has no memory of it. When General Shang tells her that he came to visit her because of the call she made to him, she didn't know she had done that until the very moment he mentions it. It's rather complicated to properly explain but essentially, by shifting how a person perceives time, you can continue living in a time loop for eternity. Every scene with Amy Adam's characters personal life is within this time loop, because she doesn't actually have a baby until after the Aliens arrived.
If the way that we perceive linear time is that we have memories from time that happened in our past, would a lifeform that perceives time as circular, would they have memories of both their past and their future? I've always been confused because I had always viewed circular time as being able to move through it at will but now feel like I understand it. I could be completely wrong and if anyone wants to point that out go for it.
David Lippincott I don’t know if a being that could go back and forth in time would even have memories, because the idea of a memory is that you were at a place at a finite time point, but you could be at any play at anytime, idk tho....
I see it as if time to you is circular rather than linear you aren’t actually ever in one spot in time ever. You are in all spots of time through the course of your life. It’s almost like watching yourself from 3rd person in a constant montage of “memories”. You don’t control what will happen because it is inevitable.
What is the point of you asking him a question if he’s going to answer/interrupt you before you ask your whole question? And why would you not stop him so you can clarify your question?
Time travel is not science Mr science. I'm watching this because of course I just watched the movie. The main theme I got from it was it is a stronger compulsion than fear is to communicate. The aliens knew this. Could be that in their reality conflict doesn't exist without the physical component. It came quickly the question of why would they go to all the trouble to figure out how to come to earth, unless they have an important reason. They brought with them an interface to support dialog after all. The ending where the guy concedes that although meeting the aliens was amazing, it was meeting the lady that was the shiny outcome was quite poetic. This was a great movie.
He is right, it only adds to the culture to discuss all things. Films should be held accountable and as such we get better and better films as the public puts a higher criteria on being accurate.
Neil: *bunch of brilliant thought* Jim: "So, juh enuh thisisunuh kazar ar ar" Later that night, laying awake in bed staring at the ceiling... Jim: "Jesus Christ... even I didn't understand what I was saying to him... One of the smartest guys on the planet and what do I have to offer the conversation? 'juh enuh kazararar'.... I'm never speaking in public again."
The Shining is an excellent gothic novel in my opinion, and I'm not a fan of King's writing per se. The Shining the film is excellent too, but different. Wanted to weigh in on that tangent :)
Theres no way of sayin its time travel is possible. Because its basing time travel on a language, and that time travel is in that own persons realm of existence.
Neil wants Hollywood to get their "science right" in movies? How do we know that we have "science right" when it comes to time travel and or accelerated space travel. For those we are looking at "theoretical physics" after all, we don't time travel, yet. LOL
@@dylanfonseca4035 "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
@@MFM230 Are space ships today don't go any faster than our space ships of the 1960s. Designing, perhaps but we are yet to actually build anything faster.
@@canadiankewldude Thank you. (Our space ships etc.) Do you know if the new technologies are incorporated into engines of current vehicles for inter-planet space exploration?
@@JeffreyOsb No scientific theories are ever 'proven' through maths. They are supported (not proven) by empirical observations (not maths). Maths can be used to make models, which can be used to make testable predictions, and to analyse the observed empirical data, but maths itself is not data.
I used to think the same! However, I recently reread the book and now feel that it's better... only slightly, there's somethings the movie nails better. However, one thing that always bothered me about the movie is that the transition from fight club to project mayhem, philosophically, didn't make sense. The book does a far better job of bridging the gaps and it develops a much deeper philosophy. As a college kid, I didn't get much from the book of fight club. But after a decade of slogging through the work force, there were times that the book made me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
To me, this was one of the better movies. But Hollywood did it again. Why do they have to put bright lights inside the helmets? How could one see what is outside, when lights shine in your eyes? I understand Hollywood like to show their actors. But they could film it better, without showing those bright lightbulbs. It just kills the film.
Well, if you actually came to know how actually good the movie is apart from, 'excellent,' then ive got some. This goddamn movie changed everything for me, and I never wanted to leave the theatre. Yes, I was crying but thats not the reason I didnt want to leave. Anyway, if youre smart enough to understand it (you have to be a bit of a nerd to) then watch it. If you arent a nerd, then watch an explanation video after the movie if you dont get it. Anyway, my rating? 10/10. It will probably be known as the best movie ever for the next couple thousand years.
2:13 is the reason why I don't like Tyson as a communicator. Not only does he interrupt the dude to say something irrelevant, he gestures him to STFU. He doesn't want a conversation, he wants to preach to an audience.
I think your criticism is valid, sometimes he isn’t too aware and when a discussion is interesting he can be too passionate. But assuming why he did it? Now THAT, makes me suspicious that you’re biased in some way against him? Has he ever hurt you personally? 🤨
@@dinglesworld No personal connection of course, just expressing my opinion on his behavior in some podcasts I listened to. The guy makes a living by speaking in monologues so I don't think it's outlandish to say that's his go-to. Nothing wrong with monologues either, love the old Sagan stuff. But in a interactional podcast setting I just don't like the way Tyson controls and steers the conversation instead of going with the flow. Sometimes it feels like he's interviewing himself.
he never answered the question. you said: is the science real? and he said: I want science to be real in movies when it can be! so does he just not know the answer? and then the clip ended
He didn't say it wasn't accurate he said it was interesting and the question of the man who was clearly trying to get a certain answer was inaccurate because that movie has not to do with proven scientific facts but with scientific theories which (because they are theories) are not proven yet. That's why he said it's interesting and not it's bs.
Scientific theories are not to be proven in the end, really. Rather it's a large set of rules that do not contradict each other for the most part, because "scientific facts" is an oxymoron in a sense. And the point of hard sci-fi is not to contradict modern theories
@@dontcallmethat7240 what? a theory is about something we don't know yet and it's not proven experimentally but it's compatible with the known laws of physics. there are theories that have been proven like the existence of the boson for instance that was possible to prove only when we had the technology to do it (a particles accelerator). science ultimate goal is always to reach the experimental proof of something there are theories and there are proven facts.
This is a dumb video: Neil basically just tells what happens in Arrival with no personal comment at all but "interesting". Moreover, some questions the guys asked are even dumber. I came here with expectations
Folks, a circular language DOES exist, and yes, it DOES reveal future events. The ancient Hebrew alphabet that Moses (and others) used to write the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is similar to hieroglyphics and every letter means something. Their letter Y is sideways and looks like a stick figure hand, and it means; hand, work, or deeds. Their letter A looks like an upside down A and it means: first, strength, leader, or God. Their letter B means "home/tent" and it looks like the floorplan of a house. So the word "alphabet" is actually the first two hebrew letters: aleph beyt. But when you form a WORD from them, it is Aba, meaning "Father". So God the Father will communicate directly through the alphabet! But does it also reveal the future? (better sit down for this) The 1st word in the Bible is "BRASHYT" which means 'in beginning". Using the ancient Hebrew alphabet, it forms the following picture sequence: BR= son of A= God SH= destroyed Y= hand T= cross So the Hebrew word for "in beginning" is literally a picture puzzle revealing that the Son of God (Jesus) will be destroyed by his hands on a cross. We use the word "beginning" very commonly, not realizing that it reveals God's plan from the beginning was to allow our free will even though it also meant He Himself would have to die for it. Stunning. Of course the Judeo/Christian world does not know this because that ancient alphabet was discarded by scribes and priests and replaced with Aramaic. So the Jews are oblivious to the knowledge that God revealed to them in their language.
I’m sure Neil is smart in certain ways, but he really isn’t the brain master that everyone gives him credit for. And I’m trying to say this in the most appropriate way possible. I only say this because he didn’t really explain the meaning of the movie, he summarized it. Even though he’s a good conversationalist, that was a glaring issue for me here. Can’t really blame him though, these guys probably invited him on the set just to hear his voice the same as they do for Morgan Freeman.
Arrival was a fascinating concept, but poor execution. There's too much subplot bogging down the main plot. Rebecca, on the other hand, was brilliant. I like that Tyson mentioned this one, it's in my top 10 films of all time, and only below Rear Window and Vertigo for Hitchcock films.
George W. Bush aliens want to give humans a tool to "see" time circularly, so they can see the past present and future of their individual lives (implying that people would see the futility of violence) ... my problem with this is that they didnt deal with alternate timelines ... the protagonist never saw "what could've been" had she made a different choice ... all the characters seemed to be locked in a single timeline which just got exposed as the heroine learnt the alien language more and more, which undermines freedom of choice that each of us possess... this is why one of the best sci-fi movies I've seen recently is Edge of Tomorrow ... I highly recommend it ...
Muhammad Shafiq The aliens came to the earth to reveal something but it was never shown what they revealed what would happen, instead the woman found out what would happen later in her life. She would have a husband and a kid, of whom she would lose both in the future. She knew this now but still she would go ahead and not change anything about it. Is that right?
Fascinating concept, but poor execution. There's too much subplot bogging down the main plot.Woo! Rebecca is one of my favourite films of all time, probably my third favourite Hitchcock flick next to Rear Window and Vertigo.
Neil's a hypocrite. His trailer for The Martian was implausible. If Hermes had been berthed at EML2, it would have been fine. The science was wrong and it could have been done better without damaging the story line. So why isn't Neil up in his own case?
If that statement is based solely on this video clip, then you definitely don't pay attention. He constantly calls people out on their bullshit pseudoscience. Especially when said bullshit is being presented as fact or in some sort of educational manner.
Soldier4USA2005 It's based on a lot of videos, appearances, speeches, articles, and books. Neil isn't even a professor for any institutions. He's merely a media personality preoccupied with combating creationists. He's doesn't contribute anything close to Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, Neil Turok, Kip Thorne, Alan Guth, Brian Greene, Max Planck, Richard Feynman, Walter Lewin, Sean Carroll or Stephen Hawking. My opinion will not change his celebrity. He's the atheists poster boy. There has to come a time when you have to let crazy people be crazy and move on. I don't consider him an important scientist in history. I'll give him the point that he attracted a new generation of people to the scientific community. If that's a good thing I don't know.
Elliot McGrath What an uninspiring response. There are so many brilliant scientists in this world that make NDT's accomplishments look pedestrian. He's just a celebrity that's raking in the dough for the sake of science...Thankfully that's not the criteria the true scientific community uses to gauge importance. Name one thing he's discovered or accomplished that's worthy of a Nobel, Copley, or Einstein award.
MarrowEternal He educates people, which is the most important thing in science. It's important for kids to grow up being interested in science, and people like NDT and Bill Nye do that
